SAFETY & TECHNICAL // FATIGUE RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

The FRMS Forum held 21-22 March in Madrid, Spain brought together regulators, airline operators, scientists, and AFAP safety representatives to discuss fatigue risk management strategies.

While some presenters saw positive signs that Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMS) were making an impact on aviation safety, others noted that it is difficult to conclusively prove FRMS have definitively prevented accidents. Many operators and States continue to face challenges implementing and optimising FRMS within their organizations.

Regulators exhibited differing approaches to FRMS approval. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in Britain and the Spanish regulator Agencia Estatal de Seguridad Aérea (AESA) have high FRMS approval requirements and have to date only allowed a small number of FRMS entrants, conversely the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in Australia has approved many FRMS trials.

Presentations on biomathematical models, wearable technology, and eye tracking as fatigue monitoring tools were viewed as useful, though there are known limitations with biomath models and data obtained from wearable devices.

Research presented on short-haul flight fatigue among pilots in the USA identified circadian disruption, high workload, and limited opportunities to rest as major fatiguing factors. Air New Zealand presented the company's Fatigue Risk Management Plan for transpacific flights including use of biomathematical software to demonstrate the proposed route was safe.

Operators discussed techniques for optimising FRMS and balancing work-life demands while facing scheduling challenges.

Wearable technology and eye-tracking solutions were discussed but it was ackowledged that these raise potential privacy concerns. Union representatives saw some value if these technologies were appropriately regulated and the collected data acted upon by pilots as "gatekeepers".

The forum provided opportunities to learn about effective FRMS systems, build useful professional networks, and empower delegates with knowledge to improve their own FRMS.

However, the differing goals between regulators, operators, and pilots mean fatigue issues remain challenging to resolve

Many pilot representatives saw value in reporting fatigue incidents directly to a mutually agreed delegate who act as gatekeepers (much like Flight Data gatekeepers), separating fatigue reports from airline management.

However, this level of trust between pilots and operators was perceived as lacking in Australia at the moment. Our delegates shared contact details for useful resources and individuals to follow up with for further information.

The AFAP has already had discussions with some of those operators on various issues, like the definitions of flight duty period (FDP), “unforeseen” conditions application to extensions of FDP and fatigue reporting deeds and gatekeepers concepts.

The forum provided opportunities for knowledge sharing and networking to help delegates improve their own FRMS systems. However, resolution of fatigue issues ultimately requires effective collaboration between regulators, operators, and pilots' representatives.

The conference underlined that progress in fatigue management will be a slow and iterative process, not a one-time fix. Important gains will come from improved education, data collection and monitoring, technological advances used appropriately, and stakeholder partnerships built on trust.

If you would like to get involved in bringing about future Regulator/Operator/Pilot collaborative outcomes, please contact technical@afap.org.au.